07. BA250010 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
9625 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA250010 – Mowry Property Hearing Date: April 17, 2025 Supervisor District: 5 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant/Property Owner: Greg Mowry Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) A lot area of 43,144 sq. ft. where 43,560 sq. ft. is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 503.5.1 Site Location: APN 300-09-014W @ 11652 S 38th Ave – 38rd Ave. & Fox Rd., in the Laveen area Site Size: 43,144 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Vacant / Rural-43 Background: 1. July 11, 2006: Subject parcel created, split from parent parcel 300-09-014K. 2. October 9, 2012: Current owner deeded possession of the subject property. 3. February 17, 2025: Current owner applies for subject variance request. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 4. On-site: Rural-43 / Vacant North: Rural-43 / Vacant South: Rural-43 / Single-family residence East: Rural-43 / 38th Ave. then single-family residence West: Rural-43 / Vacant Variance Request: 5. The applicant is requesting a variance for an undersized parcel in the Rural-43 zoning district. The property was acquired in 2012 but the parcel was created via unregulated lot split in 2006 at its current size (43,144 sq. ft.) and configuration. Due to its substandard area and noncompliance with Rural-43 zoning, the parcel will not receive zoning clearance for building permit. Notation on the survey provided by the owner indicates the parcel as “± 1.00 acre” – meaning “plus or minus one acre” or “more or less one acre”. Staff notes this notation carries the lot area calculation out to two decimal points same as the very specific parcel dimensions. Staff also notes the adjacent parcel to the east is indicated as ± 1.05 acres, very specific. The poor lot-splitting practice resulted in substandard lot area. This is an unbuildable lot. It must be corrected by acquiring additional Page 2 of 8 area from an adjacent parcel. The property owner has not discussed acquiring additional land with adjacent property owners. Excerpt from survey Page 3 of 8 Oblique Aerial of subject site Site Analysis: 6. The site is relatively unremarkable in a minimally developed lot split area of Laveen (south of Carver Rd.) with access via an unpaved recorded ingress egress easement identified as 38th Ave. Only the properties immediately to the south and east have been developed with single-family homes. Page 4 of 8 Aerial photo of subject site Page 5 of 8 Aerial image & surrounding environs Page 6 of 8 Zoning District map Zoning District Standards: 7. The following table is included to illustrate and contrast the standards for the underlying zoning district with those proposed by the owner (Note: changes to proposed standards are indicated in bold). Standard Rural-43 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (east) 40-feet n/a Min. Rear Yard Setback (west) 40-feet n/a Min. Side Yard Setback (south and north) 30-feet n/a Maximum Height 30-feet n/a Minimum Lot Area 43,560-sq. ft. 43,144-sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 145-feet n/a Max. Lot Coverage 25% n/a Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards Page 7 of 8 State Statute / County Zoning Ordinance Tests - ARS § 11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 303.2.2 states the Board of Adjustment may, “Allow a variance from the terms of the ordinance if, owing to peculiar conditions, a strict interpretation would work an unnecessary hardship and if in granting the variance the general intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance will be preserved.” 8. Statutory Test -1 Does the applicant’s property contain any peculiar condition– Discuss and explain what is/are the peculiar conditions facing the property and include reference to the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulations or Development Standards to be varied. “The subject property is a vacant parcel (300-09-014W) located in a small development with approximately 20 other properties in the Laveen area. The size of the subject property is 43,144 sq- ft. (0.99 acers). These properties are zoned RU-43 which required a minimum 1 acer-sized parcel in order to allow construction of a residential house. All adjacent parcels are larger than 43,560 sq-ft (1 acer). Several properties within this small development have single family houses. “ 9. Statutory Test 2 – Does applying the requirements of the Ordinance to the applicant’s property create an Unnecessary Hardship – Explain how the peculiar condition identified in #1 causes an unnecessary hardship to the property when the requirements of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance are applied. Explain how the that the peculiar condition of the property came to be and whether the condition was created by the applicant or someone in the property’s line of title. Explain the proposed use of the property with the variance request. Identify and explain all peculiar conditions on your property in regard to the following areas: slope, narrowness, shallowness, irregular shape, location, washes, vegetation, and easements, etc. Explain how enforcement of the Zoning Regulations or Development Standards would impose a hardship on the property. “The owners (Greg & Katherine Mowry) would like to sell the property, but the1-acer minimum (RU- 43) zoning requirement for a single-family home greatly diminishes the salability, usefulness and value of the property.” 10. Statutory Test 3 – General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning Ordinance – Discuss the purpose of the zoning requirement from which the variance is being sought. Then, discuss and explain how, provided statutory tests #1 and #2 are satisfied, the granting of the requested variance would preserve the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. “There would be no adverse impact to the surrounding properties should a permitted house be constructed. The subject property is only .01 acers from meeting the 1-acer zoning requirement.” Findings: 11. The applicant has the burden of proving to the Board that, in accordance with the standard set forth in ARS §11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 303.2.2, the property requires a variance. To grant the relief, the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, a physical condition of the applicant’s property that is peculiar and not common to the area or the universe of the zoning district. Also, any such peculiarity must not have been created either by the applicant or anyone in the chain of title. If the Board determines that there is no such peculiar physical condition, its inquiry stops, and the application must be denied. If the Board identifies a peculiar physical condition of the applicant’s property which is not self- imposed, then the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, an unnecessary hardship imposed upon the property due to the strict application of the requirements of the zoning ordinance which the applicant wishes to have varied such that there is no viable use of the property without the variance. Page 8 of 8 If the Board identifies a peculiar physical condition of the property which is not self-imposed, and that in applying the requirements of the zoning ordinance to the property, because of the peculiar physical condition, an unnecessary hardship exists, the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, how the granting of the variance will preserve the general intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. In order to approve the variance the Board must make findings and articulate them in motion memorializing the above. 12. Based upon what the applicant has submitted and the staff analysis in this report, staff offers the following positive and/or negative observations the Board may consider in its findings: After reviewing the submission, Staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition of the property that is not self-created. The provided survey of the subject parcel indicates the subject lot as more or less (±) 1-acre. In itself, recording a survey using a more or less symbol indicates less accuracy, and considered by staff a self-created condition despite the current owner acquiring the property subsequent to its substandard creation. An unregulated lot split that did not account for the minimum area required for the Rural-43 zoning district is not considered a peculiar condition. 13. And further, if the Board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory test, and has stated its findings on the record, the grant of this variance will memorialize the following: a) Variance approval establishes a lot area of 43,144 sq. ft. for APN 300-09-014W. Presented by: Daniel Johnson Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (2 pages) Site Plan (1 pages) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 5 Gross Acres: 1 approx. Generated April 9, 2025 10:50 AM BA250010 Application Name: Legal Description Mowry Property Applicant Case Address 1S 2E 15 Greg Mowry 11652 S 38TH AVE Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:300-09-014W (602) 904-2832 gmowry2@cox.net LAVEEN, AZ 85339 Map scale 1:513 Supervisor District No. We purchased this property in Sept. of 2020 with the intentions of building there. Things have changed so we are in the process of placing it on the market for sale. BA250010 RCVD 2/17/2025 BA250010 RCVD 2/17/2025 BA250010 RCVD 2/17/2025